FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Hiroshima - 75 years on...
Hiroshima - 75 years on...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope to go there one day. The explosion the other day looked eerily reminiscent" Indeed it did. Mt first thought upon seeing the footage was 'low yield nuclear'. No flash burns though and I have not heard anything about radiation in Beirut being increased, but the media worldwide all seem to be on the same page these days and i suspect cover up what they are told to. How else can you explain the absolute worldwide absence of coverage on the 1945 Hiroshima outrage yesterday? Do try and look out for the same thing happening about Nagasaki on Sunday. Those twin attacks were war crimes and an un-necessary disgrace - our young folk should continue to know of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"75 years ago yesterday, the U.S. Air Force (with the connivance of Britain) dropped an atom bomb on a largely undefended civilian filled city killing over 120,000 people. Very little coverage of this anniversary in media worldwide. The BBC managed a brief entry on their news 'tickertape'. When you consider the global blanket coverage given in January this year to the 75th anniversary of the Russian armies liberation of Auschwitz, one must conclude that some war crimes are deemed more newsworthy than others. Or is it that they just dont want younger people today to know about the TWO 1945 American nuclear atrocities as it would shine a light on the gross hypocrisy of present U.S. policies toward North Korea and Iran in particular? The Nagasaki anniversary (85,000 deaths) is on Sunday 9th - Take note of the inevitable lack of coverage of this event too on our beloved 'Auntie Beeb'. In fairness the BBC did distract us with a story on otters returning to a Devon river. And also something on Caroline Flack - who killed herself yonks ago! No wonder they could'nt fit the Hiroshima anniversary in with stories like these eh? "The argument is that it saved lives in the long run. I personally think they were used as a warning to stalin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got mixed feelings on this. Firstly it was 75 years ago and so you have to take that into account and as another post said, u can’t compare things that happened 75 years apart. I also don’t think you can compare the Holocaust with the dropping of the A bombs. The holocaust involved the brutal murder of many millions of people, absolutely horrific atrocities. I’m obviously not saying I agree with dropping an atomic bomb on cities and killing 200k people. But they were at war. Many bombs were dropped by both sides killing many innocent civilians. All countries involved in WW2 were guilty of this. Japan’s treatment of their prisoners of war was abhorrent as well by the way. I’ve read many books over the years by survivors and it’s horrific reading what they had to endure. The so called Asian Holocaust was responsible for millions of brutal deaths " I think the argument is that they were on the being of surrendering.Whatever The atrocities the Japanese,the hypocrisy of wiping out 30,000 innocent people and still calling yourself the good guys is staggering. Same with Dresden. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got mixed feelings on this. Firstly it was 75 years ago and so you have to take that into account and as another post said, u can’t compare things that happened 75 years apart. I also don’t think you can compare the Holocaust with the dropping of the A bombs. The holocaust involved the brutal murder of many millions of people, absolutely horrific atrocities. I’m obviously not saying I agree with dropping an atomic bomb on cities and killing 200k people. But they were at war. Many bombs were dropped by both sides killing many innocent civilians. All countries involved in WW2 were guilty of this. Japan’s treatment of their prisoners of war was abhorrent as well by the way. I’ve read many books over the years by survivors and it’s horrific reading what they had to endure. The so called Asian Holocaust was responsible for millions of brutal deaths " You obviously share my sentiments in general but i do feel i must pull you up on a general point about bombing during the Second World War. It really was the 'Allies' that were responsible for the major outrages in this respect. For example, we in Britain rightly hold great store by the 40,000 casualties we sustained during 'The Blitz' (as we call it). Germany suffered over 400,000 civilian deaths during the war. The reason for this disparity being that the LUftwaffe was a 'Tactical' Airforce (designed primarily to support armies in the field) and the R.A.F.'s Bomber command was a 'Stategic' force (the aim of which was to destroy the enemies capacity to maintain war. Basically, the British aircraft carried far greater bomb loads. The British policy of inacurrate targeting of urban, industrialised area's was originally called 'Terror bombing'- this was hastily changed to the more acceptable term 'Area bombing'. The R.A.F (and U.S.A.F) in Feb. 1945, over two days, totally destroyed Dresden (the 'Florence of the North) in order solely to impress Soviet leader Stalin (who's armies were rampaging westward into Germany proper) with the power of Bomber Command. Churchill was to blame and 250,000 people were killed (more than in the two atom bomb attacks on an already defeated Japan later). The Toyko 'Fire raids' (using incendaries on what was then a largely wooden city) also killed more than the atomic strikes. Japanese (and Italian) bombers, were, like the luftwaffe,by and large, 'tactical' in nature' e.g. carrying much lighter bomb loads as said earlier. As regards your mention of Japanese atrocities. Yes, of course (they killed my Great Uncle). War is a indeed dirty thing. But, we these days are happy to commemorate the transgressions of our foes, yet are more than reticent to openly admit to those we ourselves committed. Hence this thread. Sorry for the lecture, but to me a crime is a crime i'm afraid and a true account of history to me is paramount. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got mixed feelings on this. Firstly it was 75 years ago and so you have to take that into account and as another post said, u can’t compare things that happened 75 years apart. I also don’t think you can compare the Holocaust with the dropping of the A bombs. The holocaust involved the brutal murder of many millions of people, absolutely horrific atrocities. I’m obviously not saying I agree with dropping an atomic bomb on cities and killing 200k people. But they were at war. Many bombs were dropped by both sides killing many innocent civilians. All countries involved in WW2 were guilty of this. Japan’s treatment of their prisoners of war was abhorrent as well by the way. I’ve read many books over the years by survivors and it’s horrific reading what they had to endure. The so called Asian Holocaust was responsible for millions of brutal deaths I think the argument is that they were on the being of surrendering.Whatever The atrocities the Japanese,the hypocrisy of wiping out 30,000 innocent people and still calling yourself the good guys is staggering. Same with Dresden. " Know anyone who was on the Burma road? my uncle was and if you had ask him was dropping the bomb a good idea to shorten the war by months he would have said he would have been for it if it shortened it by a day.Was never able to work a day in his life after returning and a nervous wreck.Innocent people maybe but a lot of them would have as soon as old enough been off to commit the same atrocities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got mixed feelings on this. Firstly it was 75 years ago and so you have to take that into account and as another post said, u can’t compare things that happened 75 years apart. I also don’t think you can compare the Holocaust with the dropping of the A bombs. The holocaust involved the brutal murder of many millions of people, absolutely horrific atrocities. I’m obviously not saying I agree with dropping an atomic bomb on cities and killing 200k people. But they were at war. Many bombs were dropped by both sides killing many innocent civilians. All countries involved in WW2 were guilty of this. Japan’s treatment of their prisoners of war was abhorrent as well by the way. I’ve read many books over the years by survivors and it’s horrific reading what they had to endure. The so called Asian Holocaust was responsible for millions of brutal deaths I think the argument is that they were on the being of surrendering.Whatever The atrocities the Japanese,the hypocrisy of wiping out 30,000 innocent people and still calling yourself the good guys is staggering. Same with Dresden. Know anyone who was on the Burma road? my uncle was and if you had ask him was dropping the bomb a good idea to shorten the war by months he would have said he would have been for it if it shortened it by a day.Was never able to work a day in his life after returning and a nervous wreck.Innocent people maybe but a lot of them would have as soon as old enough been off to commit the same atrocities. " That last sentence is the most ridiculous excuse for killing innocent people I've ever read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got mixed feelings on this. Firstly it was 75 years ago and so you have to take that into account and as another post said, u can’t compare things that happened 75 years apart. I also don’t think you can compare the Holocaust with the dropping of the A bombs. The holocaust involved the brutal murder of many millions of people, absolutely horrific atrocities. I’m obviously not saying I agree with dropping an atomic bomb on cities and killing 200k people. But they were at war. Many bombs were dropped by both sides killing many innocent civilians. All countries involved in WW2 were guilty of this. Japan’s treatment of their prisoners of war was abhorrent as well by the way. I’ve read many books over the years by survivors and it’s horrific reading what they had to endure. The so called Asian Holocaust was responsible for millions of brutal deaths You obviously share my sentiments in general but i do feel i must pull you up on a general point about bombing during the Second World War. It really was the 'Allies' that were responsible for the major outrages in this respect. For example, we in Britain rightly hold great store by the 40,000 casualties we sustained during 'The Blitz' (as we call it). Germany suffered over 400,000 civilian deaths during the war. The reason for this disparity being that the LUftwaffe was a 'Tactical' Airforce (designed primarily to support armies in the field) and the R.A.F.'s Bomber command was a 'Stategic' force (the aim of which was to destroy the enemies capacity to maintain war. Basically, the British aircraft carried far greater bomb loads. The British policy of inacurrate targeting of urban, industrialised area's was originally called 'Terror bombing'- this was hastily changed to the more acceptable term 'Area bombing'. The R.A.F (and U.S.A.F) in Feb. 1945, over two days, totally destroyed Dresden (the 'Florence of the North) in order solely to impress Soviet leader Stalin (who's armies were rampaging westward into Germany proper) with the power of Bomber Command. Churchill was to blame and 250,000 people were killed (more than in the two atom bomb attacks on an already defeated Japan later). The Toyko 'Fire raids' (using incendaries on what was then a largely wooden city) also killed more than the atomic strikes. Japanese (and Italian) bombers, were, like the luftwaffe,by and large, 'tactical' in nature' e.g. carrying much lighter bomb loads as said earlier. As regards your mention of Japanese atrocities. Yes, of course (they killed my Great Uncle). War is a indeed dirty thing. But, we these days are happy to commemorate the transgressions of our foes, yet are more than reticent to openly admit to those we ourselves committed. Hence this thread. Sorry for the lecture, but to me a crime is a crime i'm afraid and a true account of history to me is paramount." We are adept in this country in pointing out the evil deeds done by others but more reluctant to look at our own dubious past. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Know anyone who was on the Burma road? my uncle was and if you had ask him was dropping the bomb a good idea to shorten the war by months he would have said he would have been for it if it shortened it by a day.Was never able to work a day in his life after returning and a nervous wreck.Innocent people maybe but a lot of them would have as soon as old enough been off to commit the same atrocities. " You miss the point. The war was all but over. Japan had no oil left and needed only a blockade. They had already put out peace feelers anyway. The bombs were deployed for TWO very cynical reasons. A. To see whether Uranium (Hiroshima) or plutonium (Nagasaki) was best. B. To impress the leadership of the U.S.S.R. with Western power (the Red Army was Sprawled accross Western Europe in HUGE numbers and a further advance was suspected). 200,000 non combatants died because of this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got mixed feelings on this. Firstly it was 75 years ago and so you have to take that into account and as another post said, u can’t compare things that happened 75 years apart. I also don’t think you can compare the Holocaust with the dropping of the A bombs. The holocaust involved the brutal murder of many millions of people, absolutely horrific atrocities. I’m obviously not saying I agree with dropping an atomic bomb on cities and killing 200k people. But they were at war. Many bombs were dropped by both sides killing many innocent civilians. All countries involved in WW2 were guilty of this. Japan’s treatment of their prisoners of war was abhorrent as well by the way. I’ve read many books over the years by survivors and it’s horrific reading what they had to endure. The so called Asian Holocaust was responsible for millions of brutal deaths You obviously share my sentiments in general but i do feel i must pull you up on a general point about bombing during the Second World War. It really was the 'Allies' that were responsible for the major outrages in this respect. For example, we in Britain rightly hold great store by the 40,000 casualties we sustained during 'The Blitz' (as we call it). Germany suffered over 400,000 civilian deaths during the war. The reason for this disparity being that the LUftwaffe was a 'Tactical' Airforce (designed primarily to support armies in the field) and the R.A.F.'s Bomber command was a 'Stategic' force (the aim of which was to destroy the enemies capacity to maintain war. Basically, the British aircraft carried far greater bomb loads. The British policy of inacurrate targeting of urban, industrialised area's was originally called 'Terror bombing'- this was hastily changed to the more acceptable term 'Area bombing'. The R.A.F (and U.S.A.F) in Feb. 1945, over two days, totally destroyed Dresden (the 'Florence of the North) in order solely to impress Soviet leader Stalin (who's armies were rampaging westward into Germany proper) with the power of Bomber Command. Churchill was to blame and 250,000 people were killed (more than in the two atom bomb attacks on an already defeated Japan later). The Toyko 'Fire raids' (using incendaries on what was then a largely wooden city) also killed more than the atomic strikes. Japanese (and Italian) bombers, were, like the luftwaffe,by and large, 'tactical' in nature' e.g. carrying much lighter bomb loads as said earlier. As regards your mention of Japanese atrocities. Yes, of course (they killed my Great Uncle). War is a indeed dirty thing. But, we these days are happy to commemorate the transgressions of our foes, yet are more than reticent to openly admit to those we ourselves committed. Hence this thread. Sorry for the lecture, but to me a crime is a crime i'm afraid and a true account of history to me is paramount. We are adept in this country in pointing out the evil deeds done by others but more reluctant to look at our own dubious past." Maybe but im sure that would be no consolation to my uncle who had his total life fucked by the age of 19.The difference with the Japanese is the culture if you surrendered you had no honour and were treated as a sub human worse than a dog i dont think the majority of pow,s taken by the British were treated half as bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got mixed feelings on this. Firstly it was 75 years ago and so you have to take that into account and as another post said, u can’t compare things that happened 75 years apart. I also don’t think you can compare the Holocaust with the dropping of the A bombs. The holocaust involved the brutal murder of many millions of people, absolutely horrific atrocities. I’m obviously not saying I agree with dropping an atomic bomb on cities and killing 200k people. But they were at war. Many bombs were dropped by both sides killing many innocent civilians. All countries involved in WW2 were guilty of this. Japan’s treatment of their prisoners of war was abhorrent as well by the way. I’ve read many books over the years by survivors and it’s horrific reading what they had to endure. The so called Asian Holocaust was responsible for millions of brutal deaths You obviously share my sentiments in general but i do feel i must pull you up on a general point about bombing during the Second World War. It really was the 'Allies' that were responsible for the major outrages in this respect. For example, we in Britain rightly hold great store by the 40,000 casualties we sustained during 'The Blitz' (as we call it). Germany suffered over 400,000 civilian deaths during the war. The reason for this disparity being that the LUftwaffe was a 'Tactical' Airforce (designed primarily to support armies in the field) and the R.A.F.'s Bomber command was a 'Stategic' force (the aim of which was to destroy the enemies capacity to maintain war. Basically, the British aircraft carried far greater bomb loads. The British policy of inacurrate targeting of urban, industrialised area's was originally called 'Terror bombing'- this was hastily changed to the more acceptable term 'Area bombing'. The R.A.F (and U.S.A.F) in Feb. 1945, over two days, totally destroyed Dresden (the 'Florence of the North) in order solely to impress Soviet leader Stalin (who's armies were rampaging westward into Germany proper) with the power of Bomber Command. Churchill was to blame and 250,000 people were killed (more than in the two atom bomb attacks on an already defeated Japan later). The Toyko 'Fire raids' (using incendaries on what was then a largely wooden city) also killed more than the atomic strikes. Japanese (and Italian) bombers, were, like the luftwaffe,by and large, 'tactical' in nature' e.g. carrying much lighter bomb loads as said earlier. As regards your mention of Japanese atrocities. Yes, of course (they killed my Great Uncle). War is a indeed dirty thing. But, we these days are happy to commemorate the transgressions of our foes, yet are more than reticent to openly admit to those we ourselves committed. Hence this thread. Sorry for the lecture, but to me a crime is a crime i'm afraid and a true account of history to me is paramount. We are adept in this country in pointing out the evil deeds done by others but more reluctant to look at our own dubious past.Maybe but im sure that would be no consolation to my uncle who had his total life fucked by the age of 19.The difference with the Japanese is the culture if you surrendered you had no honour and were treated as a sub human worse than a dog i dont think the majority of pow,s taken by the British were treated half as bad." You realise the bombs were not dropped on Japanese soldiers? They were dropped on cities where normal people lived? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We are adept in this country in pointing out the evil deeds done by others but more reluctant to look at our own dubious past.Maybe but im sure that would be no consolation to my uncle who had his total life fucked by the age of 19.The difference with the Japanese is the culture if you surrendered you had no honour and were treated as a sub human worse than a dog i dont think the majority of pow,s taken by the British were treated half as bad." Research 'Concentration camps' and 'Boer War' for a taster into British transgressions in this respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. " Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher." Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? " Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. " Guess so they started it we finished it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it. "I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people."I saw on a documentary that the cities were chosen because they had been hardly touched by normal bombing and they needed to see the impact on a largely untouched city. The conventional bombing of cities like Tokyo also wiped out the city and population. Why is nuclear considered a war crime when conventional is not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people."Because it shortened the war and stopped the chance of my dad and grandad being killed plus several uncles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.Because it shortened the war and stopped the chance of my dad and grandad being killed plus several uncles."You're grinning over people dying. Whichever way you try and spin it, that's just bizarre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.Because it shortened the war and stopped the chance of my dad and grandad being killed plus several uncles."That's debatable.japan was done. You are totally proving the ops point btw. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.
I saw on a documentary that the cities were chosen because they had been hardly touched by normal bombing and they needed to see the impact on a largely untouched city. The conventional bombing of cities like Tokyo also wiped out the city and population. Why is nuclear considered a war crime when conventional is not"Nuclear weapons are more devestating I guess? But I agree..that Dresden bombing was shocking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.
I saw on a documentary that the cities were chosen because they had been hardly touched by normal bombing and they needed to see the impact on a largely untouched city. The conventional bombing of cities like Tokyo also wiped out the city and population. Why is nuclear considered a war crime when conventional is not
Nuclear weapons are more devestating I guess?
But I agree..that Dresden bombing was shocking."I think being killed in an air raid is pretty bad regardless of the weapon used. The Tokyo bombing killed similar amounts . Thousands in the UK and European cities also suffered. The Americans experience on Okinawa was a factor in estimating possible casualties invading the mainland. Japan was in a hopeless position but still refused to surrender | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.Because it shortened the war and stopped the chance of my dad and grandad being killed plus several uncles.
You're grinning over people dying. Whichever way you try and spin it, that's just bizarre."not putting a spin on anything it was war its done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.Because it shortened the war and stopped the chance of my dad and grandad being killed plus several uncles.
You're grinning over people dying. Whichever way you try and spin it, that's just bizarre.not putting a spin on anything it was war its done"I'm just glad you've finally stopped grinning at the idea of people dying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wow horrible shit happens in war...who would of guessed.isnt that the whole idea of it? to destroy the other side until they cant fight on?people get killed in wars does it really matter if its a bomb or a gun that does it" Missing the point really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope to go there one day. The explosion the other day looked eerily reminiscent" I viewed the footage on tv, it was like looking at a small nuclear explosion. The findings were its explosive force was that equivalent to 10 percent the atomic bomb that was drop in Hiroshima and caused damage upto at least 5 miles away with ground tremors resembling 3.5 / 4 of an earthquake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope to go there one day. The explosion the other day looked eerily reminiscent I viewed the footage on tv, it was like looking at a small nuclear explosion. The findings were its explosive force was that equivalent to 10 percent the atomic bomb that was drop in Hiroshima and caused damage upto at least 5 miles away with ground tremors resembling 3.5 / 4 of an earthquake." A city devastated and countless lives ruined because of neglect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.
I saw on a documentary that the cities were chosen because they had been hardly touched by normal bombing and they needed to see the impact on a largely untouched city. The conventional bombing of cities like Tokyo also wiped out the city and population. Why is nuclear considered a war crime when conventional is not
Nuclear weapons are more devestating I guess?
But I agree..that Dresden bombing was shocking.
I think being killed in an air raid is pretty bad regardless of the weapon used. The Tokyo bombing killed similar amounts . Thousands in the UK and European cities also suffered. The Americans experience on Okinawa was a factor in estimating possible casualties invading the mainland. Japan was in a hopeless position but still refused to surrender"The Japanese see surrender as a sign of Weakness and cowardness. The decision was taken to use the weapons of mass destruction was because of the mass atrocities carried out on POW By the Japanese military. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dresden's own official investigation in 2010, on the raids of February 1945, give official casulaty figures of 25,000. The 200,000 figure was wildly exaggerated, as it suited nazi propaganda of the time. Official figures are between 25,000 and 35,000 (most women,children and the elserly) However this doesnt take into account the vast number of refugees from the eastern front so the figure will most likely be much higher.Now who was it again who started the firebombing of cities? mmmmmm let me think AH? Fair enough. We are as bad as the germans then. Guess so they started it we finished it.
I'm really not sure why you're grinning about the deaths of many, many people.
I saw on a documentary that the cities were chosen because they had been hardly touched by normal bombing and they needed to see the impact on a largely untouched city. The conventional bombing of cities like Tokyo also wiped out the city and population. Why is nuclear considered a war crime when conventional is not
Nuclear weapons are more devestating I guess?
But I agree..that Dresden bombing was shocking.
I think being killed in an air raid is pretty bad regardless of the weapon used. The Tokyo bombing killed similar amounts . Thousands in the UK and European cities also suffered. The Americans experience on Okinawa was a factor in estimating possible casualties invading the mainland. Japan was in a hopeless position but still refused to surrender
The Japanese see surrender as a sign of Weakness and cowardness.
The decision was taken to use the weapons of mass destruction was because of the mass atrocities carried out on POW By the Japanese military."Its funny how here we mock the French as being cowards but the Japanese are evil as they are the opposite. If that was The case why didnt they drop the bombs on Militiary targets and it makes is no better then them. The bombs were dropped as a warning to Russia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t forget the Tokyo Fire raids that was some nasty shit with a terrible body count. And if you are going tit for tat perhaps take a look at the r*pe of Nanking or unit 731. Fact is horrible shit happens in war and we need to do more to avoid it. " Yes history needs to be learnt from. The Tokyo raid was the single most destructive raid in history but does not get the same attention probably as the nuclear attack only needed 1 bomb | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t forget the Tokyo Fire raids that was some nasty shit with a terrible body count. And if you are going tit for tat perhaps take a look at the r*pe of Nanking or unit 731. Fact is horrible shit happens in war and we need to do more to avoid it. Yes history needs to be learnt from. The Tokyo raid was the single most destructive raid in history but does not get the same attention probably as the nuclear attack only needed 1 bomb" Horrible shit Is happening around the world now. We haven't learnt a thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else " What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t forget the Tokyo Fire raids that was some nasty shit with a terrible body count. And if you are going tit for tat perhaps take a look at the r*pe of Nanking or unit 731. Fact is horrible shit happens in war and we need to do more to avoid it. Yes history needs to be learnt from. The Tokyo raid was the single most destructive raid in history but does not get the same attention probably as the nuclear attack only needed 1 bomb Horrible shit Is happening around the world now. We haven't learnt a thing. " I agree. And I don’t think we will ever learn when there is such division. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc?" Different theatre of war and different period | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period" Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period." As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two nuclear bombs in 1945 have stopped a WW3 happening since saving millions of lives " Really? There have been at least 2 occasions when the world had been on the brink of nuclear destruction. We had 30 years where the world lived under the shadow of nuclear armageddon and the arms race was obscene The argument that the events 0f 1945 have made the world a safer place is flawed to put it mildly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related" The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. " You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? " They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo." What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one" I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. " As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? " https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/" What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war" The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? " Diplomacy Like most peace talks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks " How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped." I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? " Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities " For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific." Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. " So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue." You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death?" Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same" What you have just posted. Read back that very 1st paragraph. That's what I was responding too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same What you have just posted. Read back that very 1st paragraph. That's what I was responding too." So you agree no link between fighting to the last man as Churchill said and how the Japanese treated prisoners | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. " The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same What you have just posted. Read back that very 1st paragraph. That's what I was responding too. So you agree no link between fighting to the last man as Churchill said and how the Japanese treated prisoners" I said from the outset I wasnt talking that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same What you have just posted. Read back that very 1st paragraph. That's what I was responding too. So you agree no link between fighting to the last man as Churchill said and how the Japanese treated prisoners I said from the outset I wasnt talking that." Glad we cleared that up as read you said we are hypocritical. Happy days | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same What you have just posted. Read back that very 1st paragraph. That's what I was responding too. So you agree no link between fighting to the last man as Churchill said and how the Japanese treated prisoners I said from the outset I wasnt talking that. Glad we cleared that up as read you said we are hypocritical. Happy days" No one does hypocrisy like us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option." No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. " I don't recall saying it was a going to be a walk in the park. It all rather depends on how close you think the Japanese were to surrendering. Why do you think the Americans dropped the bombs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. I don't recall saying it was a going to be a walk in the park. It all rather depends on how close you think the Japanese were to surrendering. Why do you think the Americans dropped the bombs?" In my honest opinion to force japans hand. And To try them out And To show the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are also ignoring the wider consequences of dropping the bombs. By doing that the Americans plunged the world into spending the next 40 years of living under the shadow of nuclear armageddon. " Who is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. I don't recall saying it was a going to be a walk in the park. It all rather depends on how close you think the Japanese were to surrendering. Why do you think the Americans dropped the bombs? In my honest opinion to force japans hand. And To try them out And To show the world. " I think you are right. There was no easy answer but they chose the most destructive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. I don't recall saying it was a going to be a walk in the park. It all rather depends on how close you think the Japanese were to surrendering. Why do you think the Americans dropped the bombs? In my honest opinion to force japans hand. And To try them out And To show the world. I think you are right. There was no easy answer but they chose the most destructive." I think full on invasion would have been more destructive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same What you have just posted. Read back that very 1st paragraph. That's what I was responding too. So you agree no link between fighting to the last man as Churchill said and how the Japanese treated prisoners I said from the outset I wasnt talking that. Glad we cleared that up as read you said we are hypocritical. Happy days No one does hypocrisy like us" Thought it would all be our fault somehow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are also ignoring the wider consequences of dropping the bombs. By doing that the Americans plunged the world into spending the next 40 years of living under the shadow of nuclear armageddon. " What rubbish, the bombs were dropped to end ww2, the side effect was to show the world the devastating impact of a small nuclear bomb, that is what made the Russians draw back from the Cuban crisis, do you really think they would have not pushed the usa into a conventional war but for the threat of mutual destruction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. I don't recall saying it was a going to be a walk in the park. It all rather depends on how close you think the Japanese were to surrendering. Why do you think the Americans dropped the bombs? In my honest opinion to force japans hand. And To try them out And To show the world. I think you are right. There was no easy answer but they chose the most destructive. I think full on invasion would have been more destructive. " We dont know what would have happened. The traditional view is the Japanese would have fought to the last man..but that doesnt correspond with them approaching the Russians. Like I said earlier there was no simple answers but imho dropping the 2 bombs was nothing morally wrong and pushed the world into a dangerous era. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some of you need to realise that the Japanese mindset is very different to ours, they considered it an honour to fly planes into ships killing themselves in the process, they had no intention of surrendering, the Americans had suffered huge casualties taking over various islands trying to capture Japan itself would have been horrific, they would have fought to the last man, total casualties would have very likely far worse than those caused by the bombs, those deaths were down to the Japanese government no one else What was that speech churchill did about fighting them on the beaches etc? Different theatre of war and different period Erm churchill was speaking during ww2. Fairly sure the bombs were dropped in that period. As said different theatre and period. It was the same global conflict but the Churchill speech was when Britain was in imminent danger of invasion (1940) nuclear attack was the Pacific theatre in 1945 so 5 years apart and not related The argument was the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man Churchill gave a speech arguing we should fight to the last man The fact that they were in 2 different areas of conflict is irrelevant.especially as we fought the Japanese. You said was this the Churchill speech about fighting on the beaches. It was not as explained. I don't think many if any class the Japanese as evil for fighting to the last man. It's there treatment of prisoners of war that they have a reputation for and not a good one I was replying to the claim that the Japanese were hellbent on not surrendering,whilst we did the same. No one does hypocrisy like us. As said their terrible reputation does not come from the fact they fight to the last man its because how they treated prisoners of war The Japanese carried out atrocities during ww2. Most countries have including us. The atrocities were nothing to do with the bombs being dropped. I said its why they have a terrible reputation and does not relate to Churchills speech. he like the Japanese said they would defend their country to the last man. That's not the same as carrying out atrocities For the 2nd time. I was comparing the notion that the Japanese will never surrender to churchill's speech. The atrocities is a different issue. You wrote as you can see above'the Japanese are somehow evil as they fight to the last man' I am saying they are not seen as evil because they fight to the last man. They are evil because of how they treated prisoners. So not the same What you have just posted. Read back that very 1st paragraph. That's what I was responding too. So you agree no link between fighting to the last man as Churchill said and how the Japanese treated prisoners I said from the outset I wasnt talking that. Glad we cleared that up as read you said we are hypocritical. Happy days No one does hypocrisy like us Thought it would all be our fault somehow" Fault for what exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. I don't recall saying it was a going to be a walk in the park. It all rather depends on how close you think the Japanese were to surrendering. Why do you think the Americans dropped the bombs? In my honest opinion to force japans hand. And To try them out And To show the world. I think you are right. There was no easy answer but they chose the most destructive. I think full on invasion would have been more destructive. We dont know what would have happened. The traditional view is the Japanese would have fought to the last man..but that doesnt correspond with them approaching the Russians. Like I said earlier there was no simple answers but imho dropping the 2 bombs was nothing morally wrong and pushed the world into a dangerous era." Given the death toll both militarily and civilian in the invasion of Okinawa I think the casualties would have been very high if a full scale invasion was attempted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are also ignoring the wider consequences of dropping the bombs. By doing that the Americans plunged the world into spending the next 40 years of living under the shadow of nuclear armageddon. What rubbish, the bombs were dropped to end ww2, the side effect was to show the world the devastating impact of a small nuclear bomb, that is what made the Russians draw back from the Cuban crisis, do you really think they would have not pushed the usa into a conventional war but for the threat of mutual destruction." If what you are saying is true why then did the Russians even sail to Cuba? If they were that scared they wouildnt have even developed nuclear weapons. And what about the guy on the Russian sub?his monitor was showing the Americans had launched a nuclear attack but he realised there was actually a fault with the screen So it was fuck all to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that prevented a nuclear holocaust that day. So that logic makes no sense whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think should have been done with the Japanese Lionel? They were ready for peace..they were done. The fact they chose a civilian target was inexcusable imo. What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/ What would you have done to get them to the point of peace? Diplomacy Like most peace talks How was diplomacy working around that time with the Japanese? Well they were on their knees. Surrounded. As the link suggests they were ready for peace talks. But the Americans instead chose to obliterate 2 cities. Are you saying they had no other choice? Incidentally reading about the meetings about what the Americans discussed beforehand is utterly horrific. Whilst those mythical peace talks are going on how many Men Women and children would be dying a cruel slow death of starvation? I’m not saying the bombs were warranted. But thinking simple diplomacy was about to swing into play overnight is blue sky thinking. So the Americans dropped the bombs to stop people starving to death? Where did I put that? (I’m seeing a theme here) I’m saying that whilst your mythical diplomacy was going on with a country already on its knees people would be dying a cruel slow death. The Japanese had reached out to Russia so not sure where this "mythical 'diplomacy is coming from. It's quite simple. You either think dropping the 2 bombs was justified or not. Personally I dont. Of course they wouldnt have surrendered overnight but you appear to be suggesting the anericans had no other option. No I don’t appear to be suggesting that. (That same theme again) 1)Diplomacy people starve. Lots also die in combat because those pesky Japanese were quite stubborn in the combat zones. 2) invade lots die people also starve. (Probably the most casualties) 3) drop two horrific bombs and a lot of people die. The choices are very hard indeed. I don't recall saying it was a going to be a walk in the park. It all rather depends on how close you think the Japanese were to surrendering. Why do you think the Americans dropped the bombs? In my honest opinion to force japans hand. And To try them out And To show the world. I think you are right. There was no easy answer but they chose the most destructive. I think full on invasion would have been more destructive. We dont know what would have happened. The traditional view is the Japanese would have fought to the last man..but that doesnt correspond with them approaching the Russians. Like I said earlier there was no simple answers but imho dropping the 2 bombs was nothing morally wrong and pushed the world into a dangerous era. Given the death toll both militarily and civilian in the invasion of Okinawa I think the casualties would have been very high if a full scale invasion was attempted. " I think you are right and it was probably a factor in their thinking. We simply dont know. They were done.it was just a matter of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war?" Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are also ignoring the wider consequences of dropping the bombs. By doing that the Americans plunged the world into spending the next 40 years of living under the shadow of nuclear armageddon. What rubbish, the bombs were dropped to end ww2, the side effect was to show the world the devastating impact of a small nuclear bomb, that is what made the Russians draw back from the Cuban crisis, do you really think they would have not pushed the usa into a conventional war but for the threat of mutual destruction. If what you are saying is true why then did the Russians even sail to Cuba? If they were that scared they wouildnt have even developed nuclear weapons. And what about the guy on the Russian sub?his monitor was showing the Americans had launched a nuclear attack but he realised there was actually a fault with the screen So it was fuck all to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that prevented a nuclear holocaust that day. So that logic makes no sense whatsoever." I take it you are shit at playing poker. Like nuclear deterrent it's a game of bluff. The Russians blinked first, Why do you think the word deterrent is used to describe nuclear weapons. If you think that it was wrong to use them due to the death toll just look up the death toll from the islands the usa took on the way, they were far far higher than from the bombs dropped on Japan, for once just look at the facts they simply cant be argued with. NO ONE wants people to die in wars but the blame for all the deaths in ww2 are the responsibility of the two countries who started it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path." You do know the germans were developing them ? Do you really think they would have thought twice about dropping them on the UK . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are also ignoring the wider consequences of dropping the bombs. By doing that the Americans plunged the world into spending the next 40 years of living under the shadow of nuclear armageddon. What rubbish, the bombs were dropped to end ww2, the side effect was to show the world the devastating impact of a small nuclear bomb, that is what made the Russians draw back from the Cuban crisis, do you really think they would have not pushed the usa into a conventional war but for the threat of mutual destruction. If what you are saying is true why then did the Russians even sail to Cuba? If they were that scared they wouildnt have even developed nuclear weapons. And what about the guy on the Russian sub?his monitor was showing the Americans had launched a nuclear attack but he realised there was actually a fault with the screen So it was fuck all to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that prevented a nuclear holocaust that day. So that logic makes no sense whatsoever. I take it you are shit at playing poker. Like nuclear deterrent it's a game of bluff. The Russians blinked first, Why do you think the word deterrent is used to describe nuclear weapons. If you think that it was wrong to use them due to the death toll just look up the death toll from the islands the usa took on the way, they were far far higher than from the bombs dropped on Japan, for once just look at the facts they simply cant be argued with. NO ONE wants people to die in wars but the blame for all the deaths in ww2 are the responsibility of the two countries who started it." Pray tell where is the bluff in the 2nd example? Maybe the Russians didnt want billions of people dead unlike the Americans.? If we had lost the war and the germans obliterated 2 English cities would your view be the same?somehow I doubt it. Germsny started ww2 but the causes go back 20 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path." My thinking to but just shows we would have ended up in the same situation living in fear of Armageddon regardless who developed them first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path. You do know the germans were developing them ? Do you really think they would have thought twice about dropping them on the UK ." I thought America had took all the german scientists? You realise all your arguments mean we are simply as bad as them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path. My thinking to but just shows we would have ended up in the same situation living in fear of Armageddon regardless who developed them first." Possibly.It was a race to develop them but by being the 1st and only country to use them,they take the lions share of responsibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are also ignoring the wider consequences of dropping the bombs. By doing that the Americans plunged the world into spending the next 40 years of living under the shadow of nuclear armageddon. What rubbish, the bombs were dropped to end ww2, the side effect was to show the world the devastating impact of a small nuclear bomb, that is what made the Russians draw back from the Cuban crisis, do you really think they would have not pushed the usa into a conventional war but for the threat of mutual destruction. If what you are saying is true why then did the Russians even sail to Cuba? If they were that scared they wouildnt have even developed nuclear weapons. And what about the guy on the Russian sub?his monitor was showing the Americans had launched a nuclear attack but he realised there was actually a fault with the screen So it was fuck all to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that prevented a nuclear holocaust that day. So that logic makes no sense whatsoever. I take it you are shit at playing poker. Like nuclear deterrent it's a game of bluff. The Russians blinked first, Why do you think the word deterrent is used to describe nuclear weapons. If you think that it was wrong to use them due to the death toll just look up the death toll from the islands the usa took on the way, they were far far higher than from the bombs dropped on Japan, for once just look at the facts they simply cant be argued with. NO ONE wants people to die in wars but the blame for all the deaths in ww2 are the responsibility of the two countries who started it. Pray tell where is the bluff in the 2nd example? Maybe the Russians didnt want billions of people dead unlike the Americans.? If we had lost the war and the germans obliterated 2 English cities would your view be the same?somehow I doubt it. Germsny started ww2 but the causes go back 20 years. " So now it's the usa that wanted to start nuclear war and we are now to. Blame for ww2, you really do hate the uk dont you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path. My thinking to but just shows we would have ended up in the same situation living in fear of Armageddon regardless who developed them first. Possibly.It was a race to develop them but by being the 1st and only country to use them,they take the lions share of responsibility. " Obviously they are responsible for using them but the stand off, cold war took 2 sides both as bad as each other. As you say the Russians would have developed their own regardless so the situation was down to both. It's an interesting subject and thankfully we are here to speak about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are also ignoring the wider consequences of dropping the bombs. By doing that the Americans plunged the world into spending the next 40 years of living under the shadow of nuclear armageddon. What rubbish, the bombs were dropped to end ww2, the side effect was to show the world the devastating impact of a small nuclear bomb, that is what made the Russians draw back from the Cuban crisis, do you really think they would have not pushed the usa into a conventional war but for the threat of mutual destruction. If what you are saying is true why then did the Russians even sail to Cuba? If they were that scared they wouildnt have even developed nuclear weapons. And what about the guy on the Russian sub?his monitor was showing the Americans had launched a nuclear attack but he realised there was actually a fault with the screen So it was fuck all to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that prevented a nuclear holocaust that day. So that logic makes no sense whatsoever. I take it you are shit at playing poker. Like nuclear deterrent it's a game of bluff. The Russians blinked first, Why do you think the word deterrent is used to describe nuclear weapons. If you think that it was wrong to use them due to the death toll just look up the death toll from the islands the usa took on the way, they were far far higher than from the bombs dropped on Japan, for once just look at the facts they simply cant be argued with. NO ONE wants people to die in wars but the blame for all the deaths in ww2 are the responsibility of the two countries who started it. Pray tell where is the bluff in the 2nd example? Maybe the Russians didnt want billions of people dead unlike the Americans.? If we had lost the war and the germans obliterated 2 English cities would your view be the same?somehow I doubt it. Germsny started ww2 but the causes go back 20 years. So now it's the usa that wanted to start nuclear war and we are now to. Blame for ww2, you really do hate the uk dont you" That post makes no sense. The Americans are the only country to use nuclear weapons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path. My thinking to but just shows we would have ended up in the same situation living in fear of Armageddon regardless who developed them first. Possibly.It was a race to develop them but by being the 1st and only country to use them,they take the lions share of responsibility. Obviously they are responsible for using them but the stand off, cold war took 2 sides both as bad as each other. As you say the Russians would have developed their own regardless so the situation was down to both. It's an interesting subject and thankfully we are here to speak about it." They were both as bad as one another but one country was portrayed as evil whilst the other was the leader of the free world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path. My thinking to but just shows we would have ended up in the same situation living in fear of Armageddon regardless who developed them first. Possibly.It was a race to develop them but by being the 1st and only country to use them,they take the lions share of responsibility. Obviously they are responsible for using them but the stand off, cold war took 2 sides both as bad as each other. As you say the Russians would have developed their own regardless so the situation was down to both. It's an interesting subject and thankfully we are here to speak about it. They were both as bad as one another but one country was portrayed as evil whilst the other was the leader of the free world. " Yes definitely both very bad and got out of hand very quickly. Both spent a fortune on it. 2 very different countries with very different systems. Thankfully so far its never gone hot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people saying if the U.S. had not developed and dropped the 2 nukes we would have avoided the cold war and come close on a couple of occasions to nuclear war? Russia would probably have developed them anyway but America certainly put us on that path. My thinking to but just shows we would have ended up in the same situation living in fear of Armageddon regardless who developed them first. Possibly.It was a race to develop them but by being the 1st and only country to use them,they take the lions share of responsibility. Obviously they are responsible for using them but the stand off, cold war took 2 sides both as bad as each other. As you say the Russians would have developed their own regardless so the situation was down to both. It's an interesting subject and thankfully we are here to speak about it. They were both as bad as one another but one country was portrayed as evil whilst the other was the leader of the free world. Yes definitely both very bad and got out of hand very quickly. Both spent a fortune on it. 2 very different countries with very different systems. Thankfully so far its never gone hot" A lot of countries still do..us included. As a species we have developed and used a weapon that can destroy our entire race.utterly insane. And the idea that this weapon had somehow made the world a safer place is off the scale | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Japanese see surrender as a sign of Weakness and cowardness. (True, the general asian attitude to beaten warriors was harser than the equiv. European one.) The decision was taken to use the weapons of mass destruction was because of the mass atrocities carried out on POW By the Japanese military." (Utter piffle. It was done to posture to an ascendant Soviet Union and 200,000 non-combatants died because of it!). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"does anybody think that had the germans perfected them first they would of held back from using the against us or the Russians? " We were allies of the Russians at the time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wow horrible shit happens in war...who would of guessed.isnt that the whole idea of it? to destroy the other side until they cant fight on?people get killed in wars does it really matter if its a bomb or a gun that does it Missing the point really." why am i misding the point?? war is a dirty buisness and the end game is to beat the other side.that means stipping the other side from being able to fight on.and you say the japanesse were ready to surrender.why didnt they surender after the first bomb was dropped.guess what mate horrific things happen in war.would u have prefered a full scale invasion with either more lifes lost? or is this just a chance for you to slag of the yanks some more? that seemd to be a common theme with you.the victors will always write the history the losers in war just have to suck it .fact of the matter is the yanks would have rather have dropped those bombs than losing more of there own soilders by a full scale invasion.people really do make me laugh when they go on about how nasty countrys were in the 2nd wotld war.it was total war im more surprised how much more survived than didnt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wow horrible shit happens in war...who would of guessed.isnt that the whole idea of it? to destroy the other side until they cant fight on?people get killed in wars does it really matter if its a bomb or a gun that does it Missing the point really. why am i misding the point?? war is a dirty buisness and the end game is to beat the other side.that means stipping the other side from being able to fight on.and you say the japanesse were ready to surrender.why didnt they surender after the first bomb was dropped.guess what mate horrific things happen in war.would u have prefered a full scale invasion with either more lifes lost? or is this just a chance for you to slag of the yanks some more? that seemd to be a common theme with you.the victors will always write the history the losers in war just have to suck it .fact of the matter is the yanks would have rather have dropped those bombs than losing more of there own soilders by a full scale invasion.people really do make me laugh when they go on about how nasty countrys were in the 2nd wotld war.it was total war im more surprised how much more survived than didnt" They didn't have much time.. The 2nd bomb was dropped 3 days later. The thread is about the justification of using atomic weapons. Ww2 is often seen as a war of good versus evil but when we fire bomb cities and wipe out thousands of people in 1 go..that gloss is damaged somewhat. And as been said several times the bombs were also used to scare off the russians and show the world who is boss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wow horrible shit happens in war...who would of guessed.isnt that the whole idea of it? to destroy the other side until they cant fight on?people get killed in wars does it really matter if its a bomb or a gun that does it Missing the point really. why am i misding the point?? war is a dirty buisness and the end game is to beat the other side.that means stipping the other side from being able to fight on.and you say the japanesse were ready to surrender.why didnt they surender after the first bomb was dropped.guess what mate horrific things happen in war.would u have prefered a full scale invasion with either more lifes lost? or is this just a chance for you to slag of the yanks some more? that seemd to be a common theme with you.the victors will always write the history the losers in war just have to suck it .fact of the matter is the yanks would have rather have dropped those bombs than losing more of there own soilders by a full scale invasion.people really do make me laugh when they go on about how nasty countrys were in the 2nd wotld war.it was total war im more surprised how much more survived than didnt They didn't have much time.. The 2nd bomb was dropped 3 days later. The thread is about the justification of using atomic weapons. Ww2 is often seen as a war of good versus evil but when we fire bomb cities and wipe out thousands of people in 1 go..that gloss is damaged somewhat. And as been said several times the bombs were also used to scare off the russians and show the world who is boss." Before the first bomb they were requested to surrender with a warning if they did not they faced destruction- they refused. They was asked to surrender a second time with further warnings of what's to come - they refused. They also as been said were talking to Russia trying to get better terms. This was a trick by the Russians as they planned to also attack and carried out the attack a few hours before the second bomb | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wow horrible shit happens in war...who would of guessed.isnt that the whole idea of it? to destroy the other side until they cant fight on?people get killed in wars does it really matter if its a bomb or a gun that does it Missing the point really. why am i misding the point?? war is a dirty buisness and the end game is to beat the other side.that means stipping the other side from being able to fight on.and you say the japanesse were ready to surrender.why didnt they surender after the first bomb was dropped.guess what mate horrific things happen in war.would u have prefered a full scale invasion with either more lifes lost? or is this just a chance for you to slag of the yanks some more? that seemd to be a common theme with you.the victors will always write the history the losers in war just have to suck it .fact of the matter is the yanks would have rather have dropped those bombs than losing more of there own soilders by a full scale invasion.people really do make me laugh when they go on about how nasty countrys were in the 2nd wotld war.it was total war im more surprised how much more survived than didnt They didn't have much time.. The 2nd bomb was dropped 3 days later. The thread is about the justification of using atomic weapons. Ww2 is often seen as a war of good versus evil but when we fire bomb cities and wipe out thousands of people in 1 go..that gloss is damaged somewhat. And as been said several times the bombs were also used to scare off the russians and show the world who is boss." justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know" There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind." What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population." i wouldnt bother mate no matter what you say the u.k and the u.s will all ways be in the wrong as far as some people are concerned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind." have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wow horrible shit happens in war...who would of guessed.isnt that the whole idea of it? to destroy the other side until they cant fight on?people get killed in wars does it really matter if its a bomb or a gun that does it Missing the point really. why am i misding the point?? war is a dirty buisness and the end game is to beat the other side.that means stipping the other side from being able to fight on.and you say the japanesse were ready to surrender.why didnt they surender after the first bomb was dropped.guess what mate horrific things happen in war.would u have prefered a full scale invasion with either more lifes lost? or is this just a chance for you to slag of the yanks some more? that seemd to be a common theme with you.the victors will always write the history the losers in war just have to suck it .fact of the matter is the yanks would have rather have dropped those bombs than losing more of there own soilders by a full scale invasion.people really do make me laugh when they go on about how nasty countrys were in the 2nd wotld war.it was total war im more surprised how much more survived than didnt They didn't have much time.. The 2nd bomb was dropped 3 days later. The thread is about the justification of using atomic weapons. Ww2 is often seen as a war of good versus evil but when we fire bomb cities and wipe out thousands of people in 1 go..that gloss is damaged somewhat. And as been said several times the bombs were also used to scare off the russians and show the world who is boss. justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know" And that sums up why we never learn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population." So dropping the bombs was justified? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. i wouldnt bother mate no matter what you say the u.k and the u.s will all ways be in the wrong as far as some people are concerned" If they have dropped the bomb on us sound you have the same opinion?(that's war) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal" The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean?" And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. So dropping the bombs was justified?" It's what happens in war and attacking cities had been going on for at least 6 years by then by all participants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. i wouldnt bother mate no matter what you say the u.k and the u.s will all ways be in the wrong as far as some people are concerned If they have dropped the bomb on us sound you have the same opinion?(that's war)" They did drop bombs too and luckily for the allies the U.S. won the race of development so yes that's war | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect" I dont get you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. So dropping the bombs was justified? It's what happens in war and attacking cities had been going on for at least 6 years by then by all participants." Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a much larger scale. It was the 1st time nuclear weapons had been used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"does anybody think that had the germans perfected them first they would of held back from using the against us or the Russians? " Though the original purpose of this thread was to raise awareness of the one-sided and blinkered nature in todays media's in the commemorating of wartime events, you raise an interesting point. Adolf Hitler was a decorated soldier in The Great War and suffered like so many others the vile effects of a gas attack (the British were the first to deploy this splendid new weapon in that appalling conflict between the European working classes bye-the-way). As a result of this personal experience, Hitler, despite the Reich holding large stockpiles of chemical munitions never authorised their battlefield use. Not even at the very end when the Red Army was swarming into Berlin and the Waffen SS were fighting a bloody 'tooth and nail' struggle to keep them out, were these munition authorised for use on the battlefield. Churchill, on the other hand (it is well documented) fully intended any German landing in Southern England in 1940 to be immediately opposed on the beaches with poison gas. Many may not like this fact I know - but fact it remains.All this an aside to the main topic of the thread, but an interesting fact all the same which goes someway to answering your question (which thankfully we will never know the true answer to). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"does anybody think that had the germans perfected them first they would of held back from using the against us or the Russians? Though the original purpose of this thread was to raise awareness of the one-sided and blinkered nature in todays media's in the commemorating of wartime events, you raise an interesting point. Adolf Hitler was a decorated soldier in The Great War and suffered like so many others the vile effects of a gas attack (the British were the first to deploy this splendid new weapon in that appalling conflict between the European working classes bye-the-way). As a result of this personal experience, Hitler, despite the Reich holding large stockpiles of chemical munitions never authorised their battlefield use. Not even at the very end when the Red Army was swarming into Berlin and the Waffen SS were fighting a bloody 'tooth and nail' struggle to keep them out, were these munition authorised for use on the battlefield. Churchill, on the other hand (it is well documented) fully intended any German landing in Southern England in 1940 to be immediately opposed on the beaches with poison gas. Many may not like this fact I know - but fact it remains.All this an aside to the main topic of the thread, but an interesting fact all the same which goes someway to answering your question (which thankfully we will never know the true answer to)." Interesting post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. So dropping the bombs was justified? It's what happens in war and attacking cities had been going on for at least 6 years by then by all participants. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a much larger scale. It was the 1st time nuclear weapons had been used." Actually the Tokyo raid with conventional weapons is the most destructive raid in history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. So dropping the bombs was justified? It's what happens in war and attacking cities had been going on for at least 6 years by then by all participants. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a much larger scale. It was the 1st time nuclear weapons had been used. Actually the Tokyo raid with conventional weapons is the most destructive raid in history. " Nuclear weapons are more destructive than conventional weapons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you?" yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep" By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. So dropping the bombs was justified? It's what happens in war and attacking cities had been going on for at least 6 years by then by all participants. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a much larger scale. It was the 1st time nuclear weapons had been used. Actually the Tokyo raid with conventional weapons is the most destructive raid in history. Nuclear weapons are more destructive than conventional weapons. " As a single bomb yes far more destructive but conventional weapons will kill you to and used in large quantities can kill as many. Like I said the Tokyo raid is still the most destructive raid in history and fully conventional | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. So dropping the bombs was justified? It's what happens in war and attacking cities had been going on for at least 6 years by then by all participants. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a much larger scale. It was the 1st time nuclear weapons had been used. Actually the Tokyo raid with conventional weapons is the most destructive raid in history. Nuclear weapons are more destructive than conventional weapons. As a single bomb yes far more destructive but conventional weapons will kill you to and used in large quantities can kill as many. Like I said the Tokyo raid is still the most destructive raid in history and fully conventional" Fuck knows what the power of the ones they have now are like | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye." iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hope we can all agree war has to be the very last resort as horrible things happen in war. If you start one and behave appallingly don't be surprised if others do the same back." We glorify in war in this country mostly by people who haven't a clue ehats it's like. People also have a very myopic view of war..we are always the good guys and the opposite side are evil etc. Utter bullocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks?" I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. What ways have you in mind. The peace talks with Russia were a cover for Russia's own attacks as previously mentioned so a non starter. They were offered surrender but refused. Blockading would starve to death the population. So dropping the bombs was justified? It's what happens in war and attacking cities had been going on for at least 6 years by then by all participants. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a much larger scale. It was the 1st time nuclear weapons had been used. Actually the Tokyo raid with conventional weapons is the most destructive raid in history. Nuclear weapons are more destructive than conventional weapons. As a single bomb yes far more destructive but conventional weapons will kill you to and used in large quantities can kill as many. Like I said the Tokyo raid is still the most destructive raid in history and fully conventional Fuck knows what the power of the ones they have now are like" Vastly more powerful nowadays as are conventional weapons. Of course conventional weapons are much more accurate these days to so the power of them does not need to rise at the same pace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white." if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper" Just because I dont glory in the deaths of thousands of innocent people doesnt equate to a rant. You do have a bee in your bonnet about germans. You really shouldn't believe everything you read in the sun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hope we can all agree war has to be the very last resort as horrible things happen in war. If you start one and behave appallingly don't be surprised if others do the same back." Quite true they were happy to dish it out when they were on the advance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper Just because I dont glory in the deaths of thousands of innocent people doesnt equate to a rant. You do have a bee in your bonnet about germans. You really shouldn't believe everything you read in the sun." hahaha the sun cant remember last time i brought a paper let alone what one it was.no bee in my bonnet.was poi.ting out the japanese were masters of torture and the germans were sick fucks for what they done to millions of people.did we do bad shit yea of course.if your fighting people like that who dont fight fair then you need to do the same.like i say further up pretty sure the majority of the allies were glad it was done.no more fighting war is over.should imagine they were overjoyed it was over and done with.....calling me a sun reader lol really mate you can do better than that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper" No I’m not having that. No doubt a lot Germans new perfectly well what was going on and turned a blind eye. But all, not a chance. Most of the Jewish communities were in the major cities so other towns and the rural population would not have seen anything. The papers were full of pictures of Jews in sunny country work camps and the media would have been controlled spouting how much happier they were. 16 million people in this country believed what was written on the side of a bus for fucks sake. They also believed Boris when he said easiest deal ever. Tony Blair convinced the country again through the media that Saddam Hussain had WMD. Our own intelligence service knew that was bollocks but he kept that little tit bit from us. We believe what our government wants to tell us because we want them to be trustworthy. Sadly history tells us they’re sadly not. The atom bombs were dropped to stop the loss of life of allied servicemen. Blockading Japan was not an option as the population would have starved to death way before the armed forces. That would have taken decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper No I’m not having that. No doubt a lot Germans new perfectly well what was going on and turned a blind eye. But all, not a chance. Most of the Jewish communities were in the major cities so other towns and the rural population would not have seen anything. The papers were full of pictures of Jews in sunny country work camps and the media would have been controlled spouting how much happier they were. 16 million people in this country believed what was written on the side of a bus for fucks sake. They also believed Boris when he said easiest deal ever. Tony Blair convinced the country again through the media that Saddam Hussain had WMD. Our own intelligence service knew that was bollocks but he kept that little tit bit from us. We believe what our government wants to tell us because we want them to be trustworthy. Sadly history tells us they’re sadly not. The atom bombs were dropped to stop the loss of life of allied servicemen. Blockading Japan was not an option as the population would have starved to death way before the armed forces. That would have taken decades. " Not all of the camps were even in Germany and the final solution didnt even begun till 1941. There is no way every German knew what was going on..even if they she what could they do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper Just because I dont glory in the deaths of thousands of innocent people doesnt equate to a rant. You do have a bee in your bonnet about germans. You really shouldn't believe everything you read in the sun. hahaha the sun cant remember last time i brought a paper let alone what one it was.no bee in my bonnet.was poi.ting out the japanese were masters of torture and the germans were sick fucks for what they done to millions of people.did we do bad shit yea of course.if your fighting people like that who dont fight fair then you need to do the same.like i say further up pretty sure the majority of the allies were glad it was done.no more fighting war is over.should imagine they were overjoyed it was over and done with.....calling me a sun reader lol really mate you can do better than that "We were torturing people back in the middle ages. If what you are saying is true or wasnt a fight against good against evil. It was 2 sides as bad as each other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Japan , was only dine in the sense of projecting military power, look at how bad the fighting was on Okinawa (and the japanease thought the okinawans racially inferiour) if you read up on Operation downfall( the planned land invasion of japan) its hard yo argue the case for not droppong them estimated us allied casualties were over a million while japanease where nearly 9 , while nukes are bad..having a protracted would have led to so much more death and dehumanisation .yes the US wanted to show its power , but tbh it was well justified" The Americans didn't drop the bomb to spare Japanese dehunisation. They did it to minimise American lives,to show the Russians who was boss and to test just how devestating the bombs were. Justified is a matter of opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is growing consensus that Japan was already ready to surrender months before the bombs were dropped. Russia was a mediator, but they needed to 'test' the bombs they made so much effort to create. Therefore, they stalled the talks, cold shouldered Russia (which pee'd off Stalin) and dropoed the Hiroshima bomb. They quickly dropped the Nagisaki in order to then test the higher yield plutonium version. It looks like is was now just a big experiment to see how humans and local areas were affectedñm by both types. To hear they flew children suffering radiation illnesses back to the USA to see how they suffered and died with no treatment summounts to War Crimes. Japan had already conceded, the Emperer needed to save face in order not to fall on the sword, this scenario also gave him an easy way out. Why did they choose cities and not military installations? Why did they cold shoulder Russia to stall the talks? They claimed in doing so, many lives were saved which now looks like a smoke screen. https://youtu.be/F18ODD8YyuE " I was reading a piece where they were discussing potential targets.It was utterly chilling. The loss of life didnt matter to them.It was just about what could do the most damage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper No I’m not having that. No doubt a lot Germans new perfectly well what was going on and turned a blind eye. But all, not a chance. Most of the Jewish communities were in the major cities so other towns and the rural population would not have seen anything. The papers were full of pictures of Jews in sunny country work camps and the media would have been controlled spouting how much happier they were. 16 million people in this country believed what was written on the side of a bus for fucks sake. They also believed Boris when he said easiest deal ever. Tony Blair convinced the country again through the media that Saddam Hussain had WMD. Our own intelligence service knew that was bollocks but he kept that little tit bit from us. We believe what our government wants to tell us because we want them to be trustworthy. Sadly history tells us they’re sadly not. The atom bombs were dropped to stop the loss of life of allied servicemen. Blockading Japan was not an option as the population would have starved to death way before the armed forces. That would have taken decades. " hahahaha. tony blair convinced the country did he lol no one belived a word about wmds.you do realise the nazis came to power i. the 30s dont you.the majority of germans knew exactally what the nazis were about.they had been beating on the jews in plain sight before war broke out.most germans seemed to have been jubilant when there armys were invading and taking over other countrys.your not having it eh.good for you.personaly what a randon on a swingers site thinks is just entertainment for me xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper No I’m not having that. No doubt a lot Germans new perfectly well what was going on and turned a blind eye. But all, not a chance. Most of the Jewish communities were in the major cities so other towns and the rural population would not have seen anything. The papers were full of pictures of Jews in sunny country work camps and the media would have been controlled spouting how much happier they were. 16 million people in this country believed what was written on the side of a bus for fucks sake. They also believed Boris when he said easiest deal ever. Tony Blair convinced the country again through the media that Saddam Hussain had WMD. Our own intelligence service knew that was bollocks but he kept that little tit bit from us. We believe what our government wants to tell us because we want them to be trustworthy. Sadly history tells us they’re sadly not. The atom bombs were dropped to stop the loss of life of allied servicemen. Blockading Japan was not an option as the population would have starved to death way before the armed forces. That would have taken decades. hahahaha. tony blair convinced the country did he lol no one belived a word about wmds.you do realise the nazis came to power i. the 30s dont you.the majority of germans knew exactally what the nazis were about.they had been beating on the jews in plain sight before war broke out.most germans seemed to have been jubilant when there armys were invading and taking over other countrys.your not having it eh.good for you.personaly what a randon on a swingers site thinks is just entertainment for me xx" The nazis used the media to demonize a certain sector of society and blame all their problems on them. Thank god we are too civilised and enlightened to fall for such a truck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" justification for using atomic weapons.whats to justify if stopped the war in the pacific.id like to think if the nazis hadnt surrendered they would of considered using them on the germans also.like i said its war and thats about destroying your enemy.no one comes out of a war without doing some horrendous shit.that includes everyone from a private to a general.why people are saying there trying to cover up our history i dont know.. theres a thing called the internet you know? you can find out about whatever you want on it.its not just for swinging and porn you know There are better ways of stopping a war than vapourising 200,000 people. Ways such as embracing peace overtures made by ones foe. As regards covering up history; it is only one side that is being covered up and that is the wrong doings of the victors. The wrongdoings of the vanquished are commemorated merrily away every day on a documentary near you. Look for it - you'll see if you keep an open mind. have watched plenty of documentries about it made from both points of veiw and still dont see a problem that they were used.if finished the war in the pacific faster thats a FACT. they were offered surrender and refused so had a city wiped out.they were offered surrender again again rufused so lost another city.funnily enough after the 2nd one they surrendered.you honesly believe the japanesse pr germans wouldnt of done the same if they had got there first...of course they would of.lets not forget the japanesse were experts at horrific torture and the germans were plain sick fucks.im pretty sure the majority of the public had no problems with them being dropped.your making the mistake of looking at it from todays point of veiw than frim a 1945 point of veiw.total war means total desteuction.like i said further up the object of war is to destroy your enemy so they can no longer fight.think the atom bombs achived that goal The germans were 'plain sick Fucks? Like the occupants of Dresden you mean? And London, Coventry, Warsaw, Stalingrad ect I dont get you? yea sick fucks.experimenting on kids gassing millions in the gas chambers wiping out whole french villages who dared to help special forces.yep sick fucks.or are you one of thrse people who beluve that the germans living near concentration camps didnt know what was going on.i hear the smell of burning humans has a distinct odour.so yep sick fucks.and as for dresden an eye for an eye for all the british citys that were bombed.you start a war dont be surprised whrn it ends up on your doorstep By that logic its perfectly acceptable for terrorists to blow up innocent people here,as we have been responsible for countless deaths in iraq and Afghanistan. Like you say an eye for an eye. iraq and afghan mmmmmm sure some loony islamic nutjobs flew planes into buildings before we started blowing the shit out out the bombsite that was afghanistan.as for iraqive posted many times my veiws on that.like i said dont want to get bitten then dont kick the dog.do you disagree that the germans were sick fucks? I'm fairly sure we were involved in the middle east before 2001. You agree with my point about terrorists? That's nazi regime was evil but no I don't agree all germans are sick Fuchs. Again by that logic we are sick Fucks in what we did in the Boer war. History is never black and white. if u bother to read further up i day all side commited horrendous acts.what im saying about the yanks dropping atom bombs is if you dont want your citys destroyed in a mushroom cloud is dont start a war you cant finish.and i belive it is complete bollox that the german peoole didnt know what was going on.they voted the nazis into power they only changed there minds about them when they realised the war was lost up until then they were all proud germans who were better than anyone else.dress it up how you want mate its just an excuse for one of your anti american/ uk rants.i suppose you would of been a supporter of chambalin aswell with his peice of paper No I’m not having that. No doubt a lot Germans new perfectly well what was going on and turned a blind eye. But all, not a chance. Most of the Jewish communities were in the major cities so other towns and the rural population would not have seen anything. The papers were full of pictures of Jews in sunny country work camps and the media would have been controlled spouting how much happier they were. 16 million people in this country believed what was written on the side of a bus for fucks sake. They also believed Boris when he said easiest deal ever. Tony Blair convinced the country again through the media that Saddam Hussain had WMD. Our own intelligence service knew that was bollocks but he kept that little tit bit from us. We believe what our government wants to tell us because we want them to be trustworthy. Sadly history tells us they’re sadly not. The atom bombs were dropped to stop the loss of life of allied servicemen. Blockading Japan was not an option as the population would have starved to death way before the armed forces. That would have taken decades. hahahaha. tony blair convinced the country did he lol no one belived a word about wmds.you do realise the nazis came to power i. the 30s dont you.the majority of germans knew exactally what the nazis were about.they had been beating on the jews in plain sight before war broke out.most germans seemed to have been jubilant when there armys were invading and taking over other countrys.your not having it eh.good for you.personaly what a randon on a swingers site thinks is just entertainment for me xx" Glad I amuse you. The site is supposed to be fun. I’m bad at spelling but your lack of even basic grammar is bringing a smile to my face so we’re mutually amused. I just thought I’d correct you a little of the facts. Sun and Mail readers believe all the rubbish spouted over immigration. Are we being mislead? You better believe it. The Germans did indeed come to power in the early thirties to a country on its knees. They promised jobs and prosperity and delivered. The jubilant scenes you see around the invasions we’re mostly orchestrated by the regime. They did also bring a sense of well-being to the Germans as a lot of the land being invaded was taken from the Germans after WW1. So yes just like us celebrating the return of the falklands. The nazis built the concentration camps and based them on the version created by Great Britain in South Africa a hundred years earlier. They were work camps for slave labour but advertised as holiday home work centres to the German population. They started by mostly housing criminals and ethnics of all types. Get the criminals working is a regular spout of a politicians here but it doesn’t bring rioting by everyone in the criminals defence. See the similarity. The German regime needed an enemy within to allow it to control society so the Jews were chosen. They then started being sent off to the work camps to help in the German economy. As with all thugs given free reign the camps started shooting anyone who couldn’t work for whatever reason as they were a waste of food. Germany invaded Poland and realised they had too many Jews to put to work and not enough food or space. It was then after testing the principal in Warsaw. (I’ve seen the test site with a professor of archeology at Warsaw University) they came up with the final solution. The main gas chambers were built in 1941 to 1943 well after war had started and they were built in Poland. So no the German population wouldn’t have known and I suspect they were too busy dodging the nasty shit Bomber Harris was dropping on their heads to care. There were thousands of guilty and fully aware Germans but definitely not all the general population. It’s interesting how we hanged the war criminals and rightly so, and yet the lack of allied criminals hanged was in itself criminal. The victors always write the history book. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people actually regard Arthur "Bomber" Harris a war criminal? " Probably. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is growing consensus that Japan was already ready to surrender months before the bombs were dropped. Russia was a mediator, but they needed to 'test' the bombs they made so much effort to create. Therefore, they stalled the talks, cold shouldered Russia (which pee'd off Stalin) and dropoed the Hiroshima bomb. They quickly dropped the Nagisaki in order to then test the higher yield plutonium version. It looks like is was now just a big experiment to see how humans and local areas were affectedñm by both types. To hear they flew children suffering radiation illnesses back to the USA to see how they suffered and died with no treatment summounts to War Crimes. Japan had already conceded, the Emperer needed to save face in order not to fall on the sword, this scenario also gave him an easy way out. Why did they choose cities and not military installations? Why did they cold shoulder Russia to stall the talks? They claimed in doing so, many lives were saved which now looks like a smoke screen. https://youtu.be/F18ODD8YyuE " Factually incorrect. See posts above for details. Highlights are the Russians peace talks were a trick to cover their own attack. Japan was warned and requested to surrender before both bombs. On both occasions they answered no. They had time to answer but chose to answer no even even after seeing the aftermath of the first bomb. Russia launched their attack a few hours before the second nod bomb as planned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people actually regard Arthur "Bomber" Harris a war criminal? " Some do But he was told what to do. Is there a statue of him somewhere or have I made that up? The best bantz are the England footy fans who get dressed up as bomber Harris whenever we play gernamy. If that was the other way around the media would go fucking ballistic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people actually regard Arthur "Bomber" Harris a war criminal? Some do But he was told what to do. Is there a statue of him somewhere or have I made that up? The best bantz are the England footy fans who get dressed up as bomber Harris whenever we play gernamy. If that was the other way around the media would go fucking ballistic." There is one outside a church in London dedicated to the RAF heroes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people actually regard Arthur "Bomber" Harris a war criminal? Some do But he was told what to do. Is there a statue of him somewhere or have I made that up? The best bantz are the England footy fans who get dressed up as bomber Harris whenever we play gernamy. If that was the other way around the media would go fucking ballistic." Arthur Harris could never be prosecuted for war crimes. There was never any International Humanitarian Law governing ariel warfare, either before or during the Second World War. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as hundreds of cities laid waste by conventional bombing, were never covered by any treaty. I think the first treaty governing air warfare, didn't appear until 1949. Arthur Harris has a statue at Clement Danes, in the City of London. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one is saying that , the US does not have clean hands in all this...far from it but , with regards to Japan surrendering..the concensus at the time was they would go down fighting and sacrifice alot doing it , thats definietly the impression they put across throughout the later stages of the war(kamakaze, imo jima , Okinawa and countless smaller actions..one guy only surrender in the 1970's) ..also given the timing after the last stand of the battle of berlin...it was reasonable to assume that japan would do the same..all sides where looking to the gain post war, as alot was up for the taking(its what big powers do) . So if you stand against the dropping of the bombs fine, but what is your alternative to defeat japan? Land invasion? Blockade? Negogiations? And if so please elaborate and unpack your alternative course of action. " I don't think there any easy answers which is why historians have been debating it for the last 80 years. I get the saving American lives argument but the party line about the Japanese being fantactics fighting to the last man is flawed as if they were that nuts,the bombs wouldnt have stopped them. I think my issue is the ulterior motives the had and the face that theytptally wiped out 2 cities of men,woman and children without a second of contrition,yet have the audacity to still paint themselves as the 'good guys,' Still history is written by the Victor's as they say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one is saying that , the US does not have clean hands in all this...far from it but , with regards to Japan surrendering..the concensus at the time was they would go down fighting and sacrifice alot doing it , thats definietly the impression they put across throughout the later stages of the war(kamakaze, imo jima , Okinawa and countless smaller actions..one guy only surrender in the 1970's) ..also given the timing after the last stand of the battle of berlin...it was reasonable to assume that japan would do the same..all sides where looking to the gain post war, as alot was up for the taking(its what big powers do) . So if you stand against the dropping of the bombs fine, but what is your alternative to defeat japan? Land invasion? Blockade? Negogiations? And if so please elaborate and unpack your alternative course of action. I don't think there any easy answers which is why historians have been debating it for the last 80 years. I get the saving American lives argument but the party line about the Japanese being fantactics fighting to the last man is flawed as if they were that nuts,the bombs wouldnt have stopped them. I think my issue is the ulterior motives the had and the face that theytptally wiped out 2 cities of men,woman and children without a second of contrition,yet have the audacity to still paint themselves as the 'good guys,' Still history is written by the Victor's as they say." They have a tradition of fighting to the last man. With them its not just a saying its a belief. Ending the war asap helped countless millions suffering Japanese occupation. The cost of invasion would have been horrific for both sides with the civilians civilians affected the worse and far greater than the bombs. Blockade would simply starve those very civilians to death again in far greater numbers. Wars are horrible things and starting one never sits well in history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one is saying that , the US does not have clean hands in all this...far from it but , with regards to Japan surrendering..the concensus at the time was they would go down fighting and sacrifice alot doing it , thats definietly the impression they put across throughout the later stages of the war(kamakaze, imo jima , Okinawa and countless smaller actions..one guy only surrender in the 1970's) ..also given the timing after the last stand of the battle of berlin...it was reasonable to assume that japan would do the same..all sides where looking to the gain post war, as alot was up for the taking(its what big powers do) . So if you stand against the dropping of the bombs fine, but what is your alternative to defeat japan? Land invasion? Blockade? Negogiations? And if so please elaborate and unpack your alternative course of action. I don't think there any easy answers which is why historians have been debating it for the last 80 years. I get the saving American lives argument but the party line about the Japanese being fantactics fighting to the last man is flawed as if they were that nuts,the bombs wouldnt have stopped them. I think my issue is the ulterior motives the had and the face that theytptally wiped out 2 cities of men,woman and children without a second of contrition,yet have the audacity to still paint themselves as the 'good guys,' Still history is written by the Victor's as they say. They have a tradition of fighting to the last man. With them its not just a saying its a belief. Ending the war asap helped countless millions suffering Japanese occupation. The cost of invasion would have been horrific for both sides with the civilians civilians affected the worse and far greater than the bombs. Blockade would simply starve those very civilians to death again in far greater numbers. Wars are horrible things and starting one never sits well in history." Said it before but the anericans didnt drop the bombs to spare Japanese casualties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's worth adding that the Americans offered surrender twice before the hiroshima bomb and on the second occasion modified the terms to allow the Japanese emperor to remain. The statements that Hiroshima was a pure civilian target are completely false. Hiroshima was home to an entire army. It was know by the population as an army town" Surely the army were fighting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's worth adding that the Americans offered surrender twice before the hiroshima bomb and on the second occasion modified the terms to allow the Japanese emperor to remain. The statements that Hiroshima was a pure civilian target are completely false. Hiroshima was home to an entire army. It was know by the population as an army town Surely the army were fighting?" Surely you realise they are not all at the front all the time they held large reserves to defend the homeland. Hiroshima was a major military target. It was a military city and well known to the population. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's worth adding that the Americans offered surrender twice before the hiroshima bomb and on the second occasion modified the terms to allow the Japanese emperor to remain. The statements that Hiroshima was a pure civilian target are completely false. Hiroshima was home to an entire army. It was know by the population as an army town Surely the army were fighting? Surely you realise they are not all at the front all the time they held large reserves to defend the homeland. Hiroshima was a major military target. It was a military city and well known to the population." https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/400448/ Utterly chilling "The meeting barely touched on the military attributes ' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's worth adding that the Americans offered surrender twice before the hiroshima bomb and on the second occasion modified the terms to allow the Japanese emperor to remain. The statements that Hiroshima was a pure civilian target are completely false. Hiroshima was home to an entire army. It was know by the population as an army town Surely the army were fighting? Surely you realise they are not all at the front all the time they held large reserves to defend the homeland. Hiroshima was a major military target. It was a military city and well known to the population. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/400448/ Utterly chilling "The meeting barely touched on the military attributes '" It was a major military city recorded as home to Japan's second army. Thousands of soldiers permanently there in the large barracks complex. To say it was a purely civilian target is so my not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's worth adding that the Americans offered surrender twice before the hiroshima bomb and on the second occasion modified the terms to allow the Japanese emperor to remain. The statements that Hiroshima was a pure civilian target are completely false. Hiroshima was home to an entire army. It was know by the population as an army town Surely the army were fighting? Surely you realise they are not all at the front all the time they held large reserves to defend the homeland. Hiroshima was a major military target. It was a military city and well known to the population. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/400448/ Utterly chilling "The meeting barely touched on the military attributes ' It was a major military city recorded as home to Japan's second army. Thousands of soldiers permanently there in the large barracks complex. To say it was a purely civilian target is so my not true. " Have you read the link? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's worth adding that the Americans offered surrender twice before the hiroshima bomb and on the second occasion modified the terms to allow the Japanese emperor to remain. The statements that Hiroshima was a pure civilian target are completely false. Hiroshima was home to an entire army. It was know by the population as an army town Surely the army were fighting? Surely you realise they are not all at the front all the time they held large reserves to defend the homeland. Hiroshima was a major military target. It was a military city and well known to the population. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/400448/ Utterly chilling "The meeting barely touched on the military attributes ' It was a major military city recorded as home to Japan's second army. Thousands of soldiers permanently there in the large barracks complex. To say it was a purely civilian target is so my not true. " The whole thing could have been avoided if they had taken the multiple chances to surrender. Along with that superb documentary on Iraq you recommend on the I player is a documentary on Hiroshima. It confirms the actual events | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's worth adding that the Americans offered surrender twice before the hiroshima bomb and on the second occasion modified the terms to allow the Japanese emperor to remain. The statements that Hiroshima was a pure civilian target are completely false. Hiroshima was home to an entire army. It was know by the population as an army town Surely the army were fighting? Surely you realise they are not all at the front all the time they held large reserves to defend the homeland. Hiroshima was a major military target. It was a military city and well known to the population. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/400448/ Utterly chilling "The meeting barely touched on the military attributes ' It was a major military city recorded as home to Japan's second army. Thousands of soldiers permanently there in the large barracks complex. To say it was a purely civilian target is so my not true. The whole thing could have been avoided if they had taken the multiple chances to surrender. Along with that superb documentary on Iraq you recommend on the I player is a documentary on Hiroshima. It confirms the actual events" I'll dig it out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one is saying that , the US does not have clean hands in all this...far from it but , with regards to Japan surrendering..the concensus at the time was they would go down fighting and sacrifice alot doing it , thats definietly the impression they put across throughout the later stages of the war(kamakaze, imo jima , Okinawa and countless smaller actions..one guy only surrender in the 1970's) ..also given the timing after the last stand of the battle of berlin...it was reasonable to assume that japan would do the same..all sides where looking to the gain post war, as alot was up for the taking(its what big powers do) . So if you stand against the dropping of the bombs fine, but what is your alternative to defeat japan? Land invasion? Blockade? Negogiations? And if so please elaborate and unpack your alternative course of action. I don't think there any easy answers which is why historians have been debating it for the last 80 years. I get the saving American lives argument but the party line about the Japanese being fantactics fighting to the last man is flawed as if they were that nuts,the bombs wouldnt have stopped them. I think my issue is the ulterior motives the had and the face that theytptally wiped out 2 cities of men,woman and children without a second of contrition,yet have the audacity to still paint themselves as the 'good guys,' Still history is written by the Victor's as they say. They have a tradition of fighting to the last man. With them its not just a saying its a belief. Ending the war asap helped countless millions suffering Japanese occupation. The cost of invasion would have been horrific for both sides with the civilians civilians affected the worse and far greater than the bombs. Blockade would simply starve those very civilians to death again in far greater numbers. Wars are horrible things and starting one never sits well in history. Said it before but the anericans didnt drop the bombs to spare Japanese casualties." I doubt it very much but it was a bit product of saving American life's. The invasion estimates was for 1 million American casualties and up to 9 million Japanese casualties. Truly horrific numbers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
